Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 229 posts

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#131

Post by gdilla »

gottorf wrote: post #81
gdilla wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden admin was leaps better than this crap we have but he didn't assuage white fragility - that's the republican brand.

Generally speaking, it's better to not assume that everyone with political views opposing yours has them out of racism, or whatever other personal defects you might imagine. In reality, the nonwhite vote share for Trump went up for almost every group in 2024 vs. 2016. "White fragility" was probably not their top concern.

i never said everyone with opposing political views has them out of racism, i'm saying it just plays well. Way too many of the white voting share went to the eating cats and dog racism that we saw play out. Cuz it works. That is america.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#132

Post by bryanlarsen »

mikrl wrote: post #97
largbae wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite as an independent: I believe that "they" could have reverted to Clinton(Bill) or Obama's moderate stances in regards to border/immigration and gender/identity politics and maintained a sweeping majority. If the Democrats had disclosed Biden's decline and held a primary this likely would have sorted itself out.

As a Canadian I strongly felt it was GG to the Democrats when they didn’t run a second, competitive, knives-out primary for VP Harris. For the second time, the party apparatus coalesced around a candidate who was ultimately trounced by someone wrongly considered unelectable. Even if it was just theatre in the end, having a dramatic primary where the VP won would have made her look stronger and given her a chance to c…

Or could have made her look worse because of the mud slinging between the candidates in the primary debates. You know that any criticism of a candidate by her competitors would have been trumpeted and distorted by Trump.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#133

Post by overfeed »

julienchastang wrote: post #126
Kapura wrote: post #6

I grew up in Colorado, and a visit to NCAR was part of my elementary school education. I think it is so critically important to not only employ working scientists, but also share that science with the public. The republican machine vehemently disagrees, I guess. I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024.

> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024. The problem is that there was no primary. That really (really) hurt Democrats not only for that election cycle, but for future ones too, where candidates could have made their names known even if they did not end up getting the nomination.

> The problem is that there was no primary.

I think a primary would have led to worse results for the Dems: candidates snipping at each on the eve of an elections is a gift to the opposing candidate; who can add a final 5-seconds stinger to the end of the many intra-party attack ads against the nominee to say "I am _, and I approve of this message".

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#134

Post by Herring »

readitalready wrote: post #125
jjtheblunt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The specific issue that caused her to lose the election was her support for Israel. I'm american and I've never heard that. I've only heard her total unwillingness to be interviewed without a script. Perhaps what one hears varies across the country, of course.

I wouldn't expect everyone to know everything. But I follow all the polls. YouGov are some of the best.

Man after my own heart. I'm a statistician, and the data-free narratives on HN sometimes make me want to pull my hair out.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#135

Post by jajuuka »

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #108
jajuuka wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't seem based in reality. You don't go from majority support for you running to less than that and blame the other side. There are demonstrable actions and events that have a distinct link to her downward popularity. When examining why someone lost you generally don't insinuate that the loser did everything right and the other side are just bad people and that's why they won. That's a recipe for learning no…

The biggest problem with her campaign was the one thing it was impossible to fix - the amount of time. Everything else is nitpicking and wish-casting. And that's on Biden and his team, mostly. I do give credit to the party for actually forcing him out. That's a hard thing to do, and it's exactly what R's ought to have done to Trump a long time ago.

I disagree. When she announced her candidacy she largely had the election in her pocket. Had she run the same campaign for longer her support would have just been even lower. The only reason Biden stepped down was because the ruling class in the DNC made the call. The party voters were very vocally against him the whole way.

I'm a bit confused why you think republicans would toss aside a winning candidate. The party is laser focused on winning. That seems to be sadly a major difference. The DNC seems overly concerned being as milquetoast as possible and to simply assume a moral high ground.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#136

Post by rjrjrjrj »

khazhoux wrote: post #43
jahnu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question from a European who doesn’t deeply understand your partisan politics: what specifically should they have done differently? My probably wrong understanding was that people were still angry about the inflationary consequences of dealing with the pandemic and didn’t believe it was tapering off, didn’t believe that unemployment was low, didn’t believe that real wages were increasing. How could they have combated…

Simple: Biden should have never run for re-election. I loved the guy but his physical decline couldn’t be denied. A proper primary would have most likely resulted in a dem president (and most probably Newsom).

The Democrats didn't have a primary, so I'm going to vote for the criminal/fabulist/sex pest who is also obviously declining.

I find it difficult to buy that logic. The inescapable conclusion is that a large number of Americans are ignorant, gullible, and cruel.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#137

Post by SmirkingRevenge »

mort96 wrote: post #58
tootie wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the classic argument of "only Democrats have agency". 99% of the problem is Republicans, but here we are wishing the Democrats did more. They ran a perfectly fine campaign. Biden passed the biggest climate bill in history. Republicans ran an utterly disgraceful and wantonly malicious campaign based purely on lies and hatred. What I wish is that people voted rationally and maintained an iota of empathy and log…

My position is: Democrats, or someone else, needs to field good enough candidates, and run good enough campaigns with strong enough messaging, to defeat Republicans. What's your stance? "We should just ask the Republicans nicely to stop"? Will that work? What happens if they just keep being evil?

D's need to figure out effective ways to counter the Republican bad actors, but no strategy is ever going to be enough, with a full blown authoritarian party in a 2 party system and massive propaganda ecosystem absolutely dominates the media and has thoroughly cooked millions of brains.

There's just no way to overcome all that every time, at the candidate level.

The right-wing propaganda machine, from Fox to Nick Fuentes to Joe Rogan - even to Twitter - has to be effectively dismantled or countered.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#138

Post by megaman821 »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #66
Kapura wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're mistaking the stereotype for the people in charge of the policy. If you want to destroy GOP institutions, start with country clubs and sinking private yachts. nationalize car dealerships. break up the megacorps.

And breakup Paramount+ CBS CNN Showtime HBO Warner Bros TNT TBS MTV DC Studios Nickelodeon Comedy Central Cartoon Network. And the other media empires!

The problem with that is those networks are pretty tiny if you don't count sports. Mr. Beast has more viewers the CNN's top show.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#139

Post by jjtheblunt »

Herring wrote: post #134
readitalready wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't expect everyone to know everything. But I follow all the polls. YouGov are some of the best.

Man after my own heart. I'm a statistician, and the data-free narratives on HN sometimes make me want to pull my hair out.

no kidding

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#140

Post by jjtheblunt »

readitalready wrote: post #125
jjtheblunt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The specific issue that caused her to lose the election was her support for Israel. I'm american and I've never heard that. I've only heard her total unwillingness to be interviewed without a script. Perhaps what one hears varies across the country, of course.

I wouldn't expect everyone to know everything. But I follow all the polls. YouGov are some of the best.

good info: thanks as i'd not seen that (very randomly)
Post reply on HN